In a writ petition for compassionate appointment, the Nagpur Bench dismissed the plea of a petitioner born in 1985, holding that he cannot claim the benefit for his grandfather who died in 1985 as his father was already in employment.
Petitioner dismissed; relief of appointment refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2102wp814.12
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.814 OF 2012
(Sanghdeep s/o Parnuji Rangari vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri R.N. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.B. Yangal, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 21, 2012
By way of this petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to give him appointment on compassionate ground on a Class III post.
The grandfather of the petitioner retired from service in 1982 and subsequently died in 1985. The petitioner is grandson of the said person. It is interesting to note that at the time when petitioner's grandfather retired from service, the petitioner was
2102wp814.12
2/3
not born as learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly points out that the petitioner was born in 1985. Compassionate appointment is a special appointment, which is de hors Rules. A grand child of the deceased employee cannot ask respondents to appoint him specially when his father was already in employment at the relevant time and, therefore, he had also not asked for benefit of compassionate appointment as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The ingenuity of the litigants to file such type of petitions is remarkable. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since petitioner's father was already in employment in a Government Department, he had not opted for compassionate appointment on the ground that his son may be given appointment subsequently.
In our view, such type of petitions are not required to be entertained at all. It is very interesting to note that petitioner's grandfather retired in 1982 and he died subsequently in 1985 and simply because the petitioner was born in 1985, he cannot ask for compassionate appointment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has still audacity to request
2102wp814.12
3/3
this Court that notice may be issued. Such type of request should not be made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petition is thoroughly misconceived and hence, the same is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a grandson born in 1985 can claim compassionate appointment based on his grandfather's 1982 retirement and 1985 death when his father was already employed.
Sanghdeep
State of Maharashtra
P.B. MAJMUDAR
P.B. VARALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
